U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-22-2010, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,248 posts, read 20,631,435 times
Reputation: 3587

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
So what?

You do realize that there are far more American Citizens on financial aid, welfare and are suffering in education than children and parents who are illegal aliens, right?

You do realize that most children of illegal aliens born in the US are sent back with their parents to their home country; many do not return to the US until well into their adulthood or do not even return at all.

This is nothing more than a strawman argument.



this statement shows exactly the ongoing racist comments through this thread.

You do realize that many of them do not simply come from Mexico right? What about Costa Rica? Nicaragua ? Cuba? chile? Armenian Immgirants? North Koreans? Russians? china?

Immigrants come to America from all over the world; yet all I see in this thread is "$$#%#$% the Mexicans"
I am anti racist and I want to help the Mexicans here and stop more from sneaking in. And yes, we say the Mexicans because, while illegals sneak in from many countries, the vast majority of them are from Mexico. But I would say the same for them from anywhere.
And yes, many of the illegal immigrants that sneak in are unable to sustain a family here with the aid of the government. Many of them are the least educated and least skilled people in Mexico which is why they cannot find work over there. I am for helping the ones already here and giving them amnesty so long as they are not criminals. But as part of that, we HAVE to cut off the flow over our borders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2010, 10:13 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,749 posts, read 30,796,580 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman View Post
I thought you were a strong supporter of the constitution. So now you want to pick and choose which parts are good and which are bad in your opinion?


Please post a link, or any source stating the 14th amendment was ratified by the Congress and the Senate of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA....
Now remember, this is a very important peace of legislation.
I think the Supreme Court needs to review it, at this time.



I'm waiting........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 10:17 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,154,578 times
Reputation: 1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Please post a link, or any source stating the 14th amendment was ratified by the Congress and the Senate of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA....
Now remember, this is a very important peace of legislation.
I think the Supreme Court needs to review it, at this time.



I'm waiting........

what are you talking about. 28 states ratified it with 2 additional. Congress doesn't ratify anything. STATES do
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 10:32 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,749 posts, read 30,796,580 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
I am anti racist and I want to help the Mexicans here and stop more from sneaking in. And yes, we say the Mexicans because, while illegals sneak in from many countries, the vast majority of them are from Mexico. But I would say the same for them from anywhere.
And yes, many of the illegal immigrants that sneak in are unable to sustain a family here with the aid of the government. Many of them are the least educated and least skilled people in Mexico which is why they cannot find work over there. I am for helping the ones already here and giving them amnesty so long as they are not criminals. But as part of that, we HAVE to cut off the flow over our borders.


I have been there and done that in 1986. I'm still waiting for those promised to be fulfilled!!


If we don't learn from our mistakes, repeating them over & over again, expecting different results, we are a doomed nation!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 10:38 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,749 posts, read 30,796,580 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
what are you talking about. 28 states ratified it with 2 additional. Congress doesn't ratify anything. STATES do


They seem to have skipped a step, on the way to the States. Why is that?

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each.

Seems they did not follow the Constitution, and the Supreme Court today, needs to look into it, instead of the Corrupted court of that time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 10:51 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,154,578 times
Reputation: 1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
They seem to have skipped a step, on the way to the States. Why is that?

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each.

Seems they did not follow the Constitution, and the Supreme Court today, needs to look into it, instead of the Corrupted court of that time.
What are you TALKING ABout? they wrote teh amendment and it went to the states to RATIFY. 28 out of 37 ratified it.

What step did they skiP?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 11:01 PM
 
4,803 posts, read 3,143,138 times
Reputation: 1103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100521/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2192 - broken link)

"The author of Arizona's immigration law told constituents he wants to pass another measure to invalidate citizenship granted to the children of illegal aliens."

This man should run for President.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 11:02 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,749 posts, read 30,796,580 times
Reputation: 12943
This is what I'm talking about...

http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html
The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.
3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.






The U. S. Constitution provides:
Article I, Section 3. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State"
Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
The fact that 28 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U. S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures:
The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:

"The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ".
"That it being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretence that there were no such states in the Union: but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses."

The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the U. S. Congress.


The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:
"The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity."


The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows:
"The Constitution authorized two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States mere excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution."


The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866, protested as follows:
"Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.
This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress, to act upon the question, 'Shall these amendments be proposed?' Every other excluded State had the same right.
The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied.
Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they never would have been proposed to the States. Two-thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity and patriotism of eleven co-equal States."

I could go on to all 28 states who's Senators were censored, that were not allowed to vote.



Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution provides that not only every bill which shall have been passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States Congress, but that:
"Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him shall be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill." [Art I, Sect. 7]
The Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment was never presented to the President of the United States for his approval, as President Andrew Johnson stated in his message on June 22, 1866.
Therefore, the Joint Resolution did not take effect.


Last edited by BentBow; 05-23-2010 at 12:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 11:07 PM
 
4,803 posts, read 3,143,138 times
Reputation: 1103
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Ron Paul is also for that..removing the anchor.
One of your parents must be a citizen for you to be a citizen.
Who in the heck made the "anchor baby" acceptable in the first place?!!

Oh, right, I answered my own question!

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a1/pressing-on/TodaysIllegals.jpg (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 11:12 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 23,014,744 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post
Who in the heck made the "anchor baby" acceptable in the first place?!!

Oh, right, I answered my own question!
That reminds me of Enoch Powell's "If You Want A N___er For Your Neighbour, Vote Labour!"

And you avowedly "anti-illegal" types claim you don't have your prejudices...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top